Title: The end of the line Director: Rupert Murray Release Year: 2009 What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of this film is that if we do not change the way that we catch and eat our seafood we will fish them to extinction. The film predicts that if we do not change the way that fishing companies catch our fish that we will run out of fish by 2048. Although it presents a bleak future the film does argue that we still have a chance to change the future. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film addressed many issues related to fishing, both by large corporations as well as by local farmers. One of the larger issues that the film addresses about large corporations is the issue of trawling. Trawling is a horrible sustainability problem because it not only catches a gross amount of fish at one time, but it also destroys the ocean floor. What happens when a ship practices trawling is that it drags a large net behind the boat that stretches all the way to the ocean floor and catches all the fish that get stuck in it, indiscriminately.
Technology is also framed as a sustainability problem. At this point in time we have the technology for fishing fleets to locate exactly where the shoals of fish are so that they are guaranteed a catch. Trawling lines have reached such the size that they could hold up to 13 jumbo jets inside of them.
Even in our attempts to regulate how many fish are to be caught we find sustainability problems. Countries that listen to the scientists' and researchers' ideas don't necessarily follow them and often legalize the fishing of more fish than is sustainable. Another problem with our attempts to regulate the amount of fish that can be sustainably caught is that when scientists first tried to track the decline of fish they were lied to. China had lied about how many fish they had been catching. This was in some part an internal problem that links China's government to being unsustainable. The reason that the Chinese officials lied was because they were under pressure from their government to make sure that the success of the fishing industry increases every year, even if in actuality they cause fewer fish than previous years.
The Italian government is another sustainability problem because although they do have an official legal amount that their country can fish, they simply do not enforce it. Society itself is also addressed in this film as a sustainability problem. The fishermen are pressured from society to provide an income for their family so that even if they disagree with the amount of fish being caught they can't just stop. They need a job.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The fact that Mitsubishi is stocking up on fish and freezing them away for future use scared me. It means that they are expecting there to be a lack of fish in the future and feel it necessary to prepare for that. Also the fishermen in Africa, being bought out by large corporations really compelled me to care more about the issue. Corporations leave no room for local fishermen in Africa. They are then forced to try and find another job or to emigrate from the country, which many of them are thinking of doing. Africa already has enough problems and this is just adding to their pile of difficulties.
When the film began showing fishermen fishing for fish that live in coral reefs I sat up. Coral reefs are a huge part of the oceans bio diversity. They house thousands of unique and important life forms in smaller numbers and in a smaller area. If corporations increase the amount that they fish from coral reefs it can cause just as much damage as bleaching events do. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Overall I found that this film had very few weak arguments. What I did not agree with was how the reporter was extremely concerned with stopping a few fancy restaurants from buying rare fish when he could be more successful and make a bigger difference focusing on chains of restaurants and stores. This would have made a larger difference because they're are more places where the fish is available from that one company. There is a reason that fish at fancy restaurants is so expensive. They only cater to a small audience as well.
Also in the second half of the film the narrator talked about how unreliable the science behind counting fish was. I understand that one must see both sides of the story, but there was more than enough evidence to counterbalance the small discrepancies that could come from the variables involved in counting fish.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc? This movie made me interested in how the black market of fishing worked, who supplied the fish and who bought it. But that research wasn't very surprising once I looked it up. Commercial and private fishermen simply don't throw out the fish they are meant to and then contact their interested buyers. Not any different from a normal black market. So from there I became interested in how fishing laws were enforced. It turns out that there are international groups that help enforce proper fishing techniques. This though is incredible ineffective, especially when they don't have the support of local governments. One very helpful website I found was www.illegal-fishing.info. They cover all sorts of issues related to illegal fishing and how to deal with it. [links at bottom]
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This film would be great to show fishermen, especially those in the larger corporations. Although they couldn't do anything individually I feel that if enough people hold the same resentment some plan of action could form. Government officials in charge of deciding how much their country can fish would also greatly benefit from watching this movie. It could even possibly motivate them to change their policies. As well as these more specific groups of people I find that the motivated citizen would be a great audience as well. The movie provides plenty of points of intervention that can be worked on from an individual level.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? This film provides a lot of points of intervention. They show how effective Marine reserves can be when enforced and promote the creation of new ones. They ask the viewers to think before they purchase fish and to only purchase ones that are labeled 'sustainably caught'. Integrating some form of enforcement, making companies stick to the amount of fish they can catch and make them fish within the boundaries designated for them. This could perhaps be done by the coast guard. Another solution that they offer is some form of international cooperation in deciding when, where, and how much to fish.
Whatcould have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? This film could have explained more about the damage that trawlers do to the bottom of the ocean. For example, how long does it take the ocean floor to recover. How many fish are caught by corporations that are endangered and then killed in the process. Perhaps even some of the black market for fishing. We learned that illegal fish got around to restaurants, but not how.
Director: Rupert Murray
Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is that if we do not change the way that we catch and eat our seafood we will fish them to extinction. The film predicts that if we do not change the way that fishing companies catch our fish that we will run out of fish by 2048. Although it presents a bleak future the film does argue that we still have a chance to change the future.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film addressed many issues related to fishing, both by large corporations as well as by local farmers. One of the larger issues that the film addresses about large corporations is the issue of trawling. Trawling is a horrible sustainability problem because it not only catches a gross amount of fish at one time, but it also destroys the ocean floor. What happens when a ship practices trawling is that it drags a large net behind the boat that stretches all the way to the ocean floor and catches all the fish that get stuck in it, indiscriminately.
Technology is also framed as a sustainability problem. At this point in time we have the technology for fishing fleets to locate exactly where the shoals of fish are so that they are guaranteed a catch. Trawling lines have reached such the size that they could hold up to 13 jumbo jets inside of them.
Even in our attempts to regulate how many fish are to be caught we find sustainability problems. Countries that listen to the scientists' and researchers' ideas don't necessarily follow them and often legalize the fishing of more fish than is sustainable. Another problem with our attempts to regulate the amount of fish that can be sustainably caught is that when scientists first tried to track the decline of fish they were lied to. China had lied about how many fish they had been catching. This was in some part an internal problem that links China's government to being unsustainable. The reason that the Chinese officials lied was because they were under pressure from their government to make sure that the success of the fishing industry increases every year, even if in actuality they cause fewer fish than previous years.
The Italian government is another sustainability problem because although they do have an official legal amount that their country can fish, they simply do not enforce it. Society itself is also addressed in this film as a sustainability problem. The fishermen are pressured from society to provide an income for their family so that even if they disagree with the amount of fish being caught they can't just stop. They need a job.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The fact that Mitsubishi is stocking up on fish and freezing them away for future use scared me. It means that they are expecting there to be a lack of fish in the future and feel it necessary to prepare for that. Also the fishermen in Africa, being bought out by large corporations really compelled me to care more about the issue. Corporations leave no room for local fishermen in Africa. They are then forced to try and find another job or to emigrate from the country, which many of them are thinking of doing. Africa already has enough problems and this is just adding to their pile of difficulties.
When the film began showing fishermen fishing for fish that live in coral reefs I sat up. Coral reefs are a huge part of the oceans bio diversity. They house thousands of unique and important life forms in smaller numbers and in a smaller area. If corporations increase the amount that they fish from coral reefs it can cause just as much damage as bleaching events do.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Overall I found that this film had very few weak arguments. What I did not agree with was how the reporter was extremely concerned with stopping a few fancy restaurants from buying rare fish when he could be more successful and make a bigger difference focusing on chains of restaurants and stores. This would have made a larger difference because they're are more places where the fish is available from that one company. There is a reason that fish at fancy restaurants is so expensive. They only cater to a small audience as well.
Also in the second half of the film the narrator talked about how unreliable the science behind counting fish was. I understand that one must see both sides of the story, but there was more than enough evidence to counterbalance the small discrepancies that could come from the variables involved in counting fish.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
This movie made me interested in how the black market of fishing worked, who supplied the fish and who bought it. But that research wasn't very surprising once I looked it up. Commercial and private fishermen simply don't throw out the fish they are meant to and then contact their interested buyers. Not any different from a normal black market. So from there I became interested in how fishing laws were enforced. It turns out that there are international groups that help enforce proper fishing techniques. This though is incredible ineffective, especially when they don't have the support of local governments. One very helpful website I found was www.illegal-fishing.info. They cover all sorts of issues related to illegal fishing and how to deal with it. [links at bottom]
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film would be great to show fishermen, especially those in the larger corporations. Although they couldn't do anything individually I feel that if enough people hold the same resentment some plan of action could form. Government officials in charge of deciding how much their country can fish would also greatly benefit from watching this movie. It could even possibly motivate them to change their policies. As well as these more specific groups of people I find that the motivated citizen would be a great audience as well. The movie provides plenty of points of intervention that can be worked on from an individual level.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film provides a lot of points of intervention. They show how effective Marine reserves can be when enforced and promote the creation of new ones. They ask the viewers to think before they purchase fish and to only purchase ones that are labeled 'sustainably caught'. Integrating some form of enforcement, making companies stick to the amount of fish they can catch and make them fish within the boundaries designated for them. This could perhaps be done by the coast guard. Another solution that they offer is some form of international cooperation in deciding when, where, and how much to fish.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
This film could have explained more about the damage that trawlers do to the bottom of the ocean. For example, how long does it take the ocean floor to recover. How many fish are caught by corporations that are endangered and then killed in the process. Perhaps even some of the black market for fishing. We learned that illegal fish got around to restaurants, but not how.
http://www.suite101.com/content/illegal-shark-fin-fishing-a18386
http://www.illegal-fishing.info
http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/25/poaching-fishing-black-market-lifestyle-food-nyc-dec.html